Alright, so I've spend a lot of time since my last post trying to pick a band to showcase first but this is such a diverse genre that no single band can really do it justice in a "start here" sort of context, so instead I'm just going to throw a bunch songs from different bands at your ear-wall and hope something sticks. Plan to waste some serious time here. Sorry. (Also, I couldn't figure out how to embed the videos here. I'm going to mess around and see what happens, and if you know please tell me, but in the mean time I apologize for the links)
Ok, first let's look at some We Insist! tracks. First up is "My Own Delight"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZbG2XgNeR8
This song is in 3/4 (It sounds like it doesn't change, but it might. That's not too important right now), not a totally alien meter. Listen to the snare in the beginning though (And again later on towards the end), it's marking 2 evenly spaced beats to the measure which forms a polyrhythm. Remember, I said that odd meter was a prime characteristic of math rock but it's rhythmic experimentation in general that's key. A polyrhythm is simple to explain, it's when you have two contrasting rhythms (Like a grouping of 5 and a grouping of 3) that sound simultaneously and for the same duration, which creates a sort of tense interplay between the two parts. The polyrhythm occurring here is 3 beat feel of the time signatures against the 2 beat accenting of the snare.
You'll also notice a few points at which the music seems to break down and stall while something fills in the gaps before it picks up again (See ~28 seconds in and ~2:07). This sort of stop-start riffing is prevalent throughout the genre, and we'll get to some more extreme (And awesome sounding) cases later on. Also at 2:07 we see a slow contrasting section with a very loose sense of tempo. Contrasting sections and periods of indeterminate or loose structure are another common tool in the math rock arsenal to be on the lookout for.
Moving on to "An Architect" a more traditional sort of math rock song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubppUffEWbc
Right off the bat you should notice the odd meter of the verse riff, which is 15/8+13/8 (Phrased as groupings of 3+3+3+2+2+2 8th notes for the first bar and 3+3+3+2+2 for the second). The rest of track is standard 4/4 but notice how the lyrics of the chorus loop around on themselves. This sort of "ouroboros"-esque approach to writing isn't everywhere in the genre but it's common enough to deserve mention.
Finally by We Insist! let's look at this live video of "Half Awake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow20L73CVD4
Now, this entire song is 4/4. The meter is split into 2 beats of triplet feel (Which just means groups of 3 notes in the space where 2 would normally go, for those not used to the term) and 2 beats of standard straight 8th notes for the verses and choruses, which is pretty cool and interesting. And you'll probably also notice how everything sounds a bit "off" for a standard rock tune, like it's about to fall apart at any moment. Still, this is a pretty bad example to show you. So why did I do it? Because the drummer is playing with one arm while singing! HOLY HAT RACK!
Anyways, time to look at something a bit farther back in time, one of the bands that helped start the genre (And post-rock, which we may get into another day), Slint. First is the classic "Nosferatu Man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qg6kPtVAM4
The verses are in 5/4 and the choruses are in 6/4. GrungeRock1991's comment on the video's page itself is a pretty good guide to what's happening at which point in the song, except whenever he says 4/4 pretend he said 6/4 instead. The mistake he made is an easy one though, in that he was only listening to the drums, which do appear to be in 4/4. The guitars however are marking a consistent 3/8 pattern against that feel (1-2-rest-1-2-rest ad infinitum), and if you write the section in six then you can fit the whole ensemble into the same meter (6/4 and 12/8 indicate the same period of time, obviously since the fractions reduce the same, and 4 groups of 3/8 fit within a bar of 12/8, or 6/4). If you don't want to do that then the band is performing what is called a polymeter, which is like a polyrhythm but with time signatures where one or more voices are playing in one time signature and some other voices are playing in another time signature. And aside from all the theory goodness it's just a really, really great song.
I'm going to dedicate a whole post to Slint at some point this month, so here's Yowie with "Trina."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoq2PMJ1pGU
No, I'm not going to figure out the time signature progression of that for you (I have other things to do, like writing blog posts and talking to people about how I'm going to write some blog posts. Man, maybe this isn't going to be healthy), but rest assured that it contains numerous odd meters and that the meter itself changes often. But that's not important here. Just listen to that. No, don't chicken out on me now, nobody said this would be easy. Really listen to that. Listen to how the different instruments fly in and out of sync with one another, how the drums tear through and play every accent pattern but a standard back beat while the guitars sputter madly over head. Isn't that beautiful? Yowie is a great case in math rack, as they're one of those bands that fit firmly in the "holy crap, how many numbers did you just play?" category while also sticking with the trend of marrying noise rock into the equation (We'll get to all that later, but most noise rock-math rock crossover bands tend to be more rhythmically conservative). Just listen to it.
Thingy with "Plenty:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te__ngRG5aE
Ok, back to more familiar territory, right? This is a pretty simple song and Thingy isn't very hectic when it comes to meter, often playing entire songs in 4/4 or 3/4. This one uses groupings of 3/8 throughout but varies the between accenting 1 and not accenting 1 to create some interesting patterns (Especially right after the beginning where they create the feel of 5 for a bit). They also use hemiola in the chorus (3+3+2+2+2, like West Side Story's America) and lots of repetition. Repetition is another cool trick in the math rock toolkit, which is great for leaving some people going "wait, what?" without actually doing anything far out of the ordinary. It's like a skipping record, we've all heard it but most people aren't actively expecting it to happen, so when a band plans for it they can use that to great effect.
Rob Crow with "Kill All The Humans:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3wFZ67FxA
Rob Crow has a lot of math rock projects like this, one of them being Thingy (As you probably already knew, given the title of the last video). This track is primarily, or entirely, in 3/4 but he does a cool trick with the "I don't want to be a fucking robot" chorus where he starts it on beat 3 of the previous measure (Instead of waiting until the next downbeat like a normal songwriter) and then throws in a weird little accent pattern. I'm actually still scratching my head trying to figure out if it's still in 3/4 or if he changed meter (If he did, I'm thinking it's either 21/16, 11/8, or 23/16... basically something just shy of six quarter note counts). Whether or not he did though isn't the issue, it's what it sounds like and it sure as hell sounds like he's in a different rhythmic feel for that part. Also note how sections glide seamless in and out of each other, it's all very organic. Even with the unusual feel of that part it sounds like it's something that someone could have started playing naturally, it's not the lush intricacy of a Don Caballero track.
Speaking of which, here's Don Cab with "Stupid Puma:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDYl_OOcrgA
Another song with too many shifts for me to bother with figuring it all out tonight, but the central motif is 5/8 expressed as 2+3 (It starts off the piece) which is then carried through, modulated, chopped up and put back together (For example, there's a section at 0:58 where we see a bar of 5/8 alternated with 7/8, in which they go 2+3+2). Minimalism plays a huge role in their music, especially in the guitar work of Ian Willaims. Phrases are drawn out and altered multiple times over the course of a single song, sometimes with only one clear melodic idea in a whole composition. To contrast this, Damon Che pounds every voice on his kit and every available opportunity, creating an environment in which the drums take on the role of the "lead" instrument, which is a total 180 from rock standards.
Finally, here's another Don Cab tune, "The Peter Criss Jazz." I'm not going to say anything about it, just listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o_C9n0mh_M
And that concludes our brief glimpse at math rock for the moment. Hopefully you found something to enjoy in all that, but if not don't be discouraged. Math rock is such a broad and diverse genre that you can't throw a rock without hitting a band with a fairly unique style. As I said, I plan on dedicating a post to Slint at a later date (Along with some other bands who will each get their time to shine) but does anyone want me to cover another one of these groups in greater detail as well? We have a whole month to fill with this stuff, I'm very open to suggestions.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Genre of the month I: Math Rock
I've been trying to think of a way to kickstart this music thing and I think the best way to go about doing that would be by talking about the coolest, most interesting topic ever conceived: music genres. Yeah, that's right. I can already hear your pulse speeding with exuberance. Each month I plan on bringing a new genre (Or maybe even subgenre... gasp!) to the table, parsing out what it is and providing commentary off and on about what bands I think are worth checking out. And that is just... so great.
Alright, so first we've got my favorite genre of rock music ever, none other than the poorly understood yet highly influential kingdom of math rock. What is math rock? To put it in it's simplest terms, math rock is rock music that puts heavy emphasis on rhythmic experimentation, usually in the use of odd time signatures (Brief tutorial on that in a moment, for the uninitiated). Now, I know you're just dying for me to break that down more completely, so I'll do it. Just for you. You're welcome.
Alright, so the core concept is rhythmic experimentation, but why? Well, the goal of most math rock bands (At least initially, but again we'll get to that) is deconstructive. You take apart a rock song and get to see and the innards, what really makes it tick. Then you get to have fun and reconstruct everything by deliberately building something that isn't in the blueprint, but bears a striking resemblance to it. If you take a driving 4/4 rock backbeat, a math rock band will flip it several times with asymmetrical meter and leave you awkwardly bobbing along to the downbeat, then cut into a disruptive unison passage before the instruments wander off on their own again. That's part of what makes it so awesome, you can tell that you're listening to a rock song but it's all "wrong" somehow. Nothing flows like your ear expects it to (At first).
Alright, before I go any further I really need to comment on time signatures. If you don't know (And if you never studied music in a formal context, there's a pretty large chance that you don't. That's normal), a time signature specifies the rhythmic meter of the music and is represented as a fraction. The numerator tells us the number of "beats" in a measure of music, the denominator tells us the duration of each beat. So a 3/4 meter tells us that there are three beats to the measure (Think waltz) and that each beat is a quarter note, 1/4th of a whole note. Quarter notes have more or less become the "standard" beat duration in modern music, so most meters you'll come across with be x/4. Also, most modern music is felt either in 3s or 4s, so 3/4 and 4/4 are pretty much the vanilla time signatures these days.
An odd time signature is a time technically a meter with a numerator that is not divisible by 3 or 4, but in practical use it's normally any meter where the number of beats is anything other than 2, 3 or 4. 5/4, with five beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is odd. 6/4, with six beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is not odd in strict music theory but is unusual and thus considered "odd" in practice. A meter of 7/8 is another common odd time, in which there are seven beats to the bar each of which take up an eight note in duration. An 11/16 meter is not quite so common, with eleven beats in each measure and the sixteenth note getting the beat. Are you seeing the pattern? It's very simple stuff when you think about it, but for some reason the "feel" of these meters hasn't caught much mainstream traction. I'm not going to keep prattling on about this, but if someone wants me to dedicate a post or ten to time signatures, I'll totally do it.
Now, math rock makes heavy use of the aforementioned odd meters. While a standard rock song may be written in 4/4 (Likely have beats 2 and 4 accented in most measures. Listen to the snare in any song on the radio) and maybe have a short section in 3/4 if they're really adventurous, a fairly simple math rock tune might have verses in 13/8, choruses that alternate 15/8 and 29/16, and an instrumental passage or three that change meter every measure. This is the most obvious characteristic that distinguishes the genre and it is one that you should keep in mind once we stop talking and start listening.
Now, there is a lot more to the rhythmic experimentation found in math rock than just the use of odd times, but I'm going to put that aside for later in the week. If you're enjoying this just wait until we get into tuplets and polyrhythms.
Ok, that's a good enough introduction anyways, I'll pick up with the overview (And focus on a few key bands) throughout the course of the month... maybe even later tonight if the mood strikes me (And it always strikes me... so, y'know, there probably will be one). If you just can't wait, the wikipedia article on math is actually fairly informative and factually accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_rock), or at least it was the last time I looked. Also, here are a few math rock bands you might want to check out independently (I'll probably devote time to most of them, but not all and all the bands I end up covering might not be on this list. Hey, there's a lot of great stuff to pick from):
Don Caballero
Thingy
Slint
The Jesus Lizard
Shellac
Minus The Bear
June of 44
Tera Melos
We Are Knives
Sleeping People
Yowie
Hella
The Dirty Projectors
Giraffes? Giraffes!
We Followed Tigers
Sharks Keep Moving
Rodan
Dazzling Killmen
Faraquet
Drive Like Jehu
Capillary Action
We Insist!
Alright, so first we've got my favorite genre of rock music ever, none other than the poorly understood yet highly influential kingdom of math rock. What is math rock? To put it in it's simplest terms, math rock is rock music that puts heavy emphasis on rhythmic experimentation, usually in the use of odd time signatures (Brief tutorial on that in a moment, for the uninitiated). Now, I know you're just dying for me to break that down more completely, so I'll do it. Just for you. You're welcome.
Alright, so the core concept is rhythmic experimentation, but why? Well, the goal of most math rock bands (At least initially, but again we'll get to that) is deconstructive. You take apart a rock song and get to see and the innards, what really makes it tick. Then you get to have fun and reconstruct everything by deliberately building something that isn't in the blueprint, but bears a striking resemblance to it. If you take a driving 4/4 rock backbeat, a math rock band will flip it several times with asymmetrical meter and leave you awkwardly bobbing along to the downbeat, then cut into a disruptive unison passage before the instruments wander off on their own again. That's part of what makes it so awesome, you can tell that you're listening to a rock song but it's all "wrong" somehow. Nothing flows like your ear expects it to (At first).
Alright, before I go any further I really need to comment on time signatures. If you don't know (And if you never studied music in a formal context, there's a pretty large chance that you don't. That's normal), a time signature specifies the rhythmic meter of the music and is represented as a fraction. The numerator tells us the number of "beats" in a measure of music, the denominator tells us the duration of each beat. So a 3/4 meter tells us that there are three beats to the measure (Think waltz) and that each beat is a quarter note, 1/4th of a whole note. Quarter notes have more or less become the "standard" beat duration in modern music, so most meters you'll come across with be x/4. Also, most modern music is felt either in 3s or 4s, so 3/4 and 4/4 are pretty much the vanilla time signatures these days.
An odd time signature is a time technically a meter with a numerator that is not divisible by 3 or 4, but in practical use it's normally any meter where the number of beats is anything other than 2, 3 or 4. 5/4, with five beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is odd. 6/4, with six beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is not odd in strict music theory but is unusual and thus considered "odd" in practice. A meter of 7/8 is another common odd time, in which there are seven beats to the bar each of which take up an eight note in duration. An 11/16 meter is not quite so common, with eleven beats in each measure and the sixteenth note getting the beat. Are you seeing the pattern? It's very simple stuff when you think about it, but for some reason the "feel" of these meters hasn't caught much mainstream traction. I'm not going to keep prattling on about this, but if someone wants me to dedicate a post or ten to time signatures, I'll totally do it.
Now, math rock makes heavy use of the aforementioned odd meters. While a standard rock song may be written in 4/4 (Likely have beats 2 and 4 accented in most measures. Listen to the snare in any song on the radio) and maybe have a short section in 3/4 if they're really adventurous, a fairly simple math rock tune might have verses in 13/8, choruses that alternate 15/8 and 29/16, and an instrumental passage or three that change meter every measure. This is the most obvious characteristic that distinguishes the genre and it is one that you should keep in mind once we stop talking and start listening.
Now, there is a lot more to the rhythmic experimentation found in math rock than just the use of odd times, but I'm going to put that aside for later in the week. If you're enjoying this just wait until we get into tuplets and polyrhythms.
Ok, that's a good enough introduction anyways, I'll pick up with the overview (And focus on a few key bands) throughout the course of the month... maybe even later tonight if the mood strikes me (And it always strikes me... so, y'know, there probably will be one). If you just can't wait, the wikipedia article on math is actually fairly informative and factually accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_rock), or at least it was the last time I looked. Also, here are a few math rock bands you might want to check out independently (I'll probably devote time to most of them, but not all and all the bands I end up covering might not be on this list. Hey, there's a lot of great stuff to pick from):
Don Caballero
Thingy
Slint
The Jesus Lizard
Shellac
Minus The Bear
June of 44
Tera Melos
We Are Knives
Sleeping People
Yowie
Hella
The Dirty Projectors
Giraffes? Giraffes!
We Followed Tigers
Sharks Keep Moving
Rodan
Dazzling Killmen
Faraquet
Drive Like Jehu
Capillary Action
We Insist!
Concerning Free Will
Alright, I've been discussing the concept of free will with various people for a little over a year now and my line of argument and explanation is almost always the same, so I think I'll kick things off around by presenting a very basic framework of free will and determinism (My position, we'll get to it in a moment), how the two interact and how we should view the situation. (Note: Everything that follows from here on is obviously up for debate, and I in fact encourage that at every opportunity)
First, what is free will? Literally, it is having a will that is a free. In this case the "will" is volition, the conscious desire, a mental state capable of striving towards some action. "Free" means unconstrained. So, slamming it together, we get an unconstrained volition. Great. Essentially what that means is that the volition has some form of unconstrained freedom to decide upon a particular course of action. This is all probably something that you're very familiar and seems pointless, but the technical terminology is important because...
For the volition to choose between various courses of action there have to actually be various courses of action in the first place. Again, this seems obvious, but it's very important. If there is only one course of action with no other alternatives, then it cannot be said that free will enters into the equation because there aren't any choices to be made. To put it another way, if A can lead to B, C or D, then we could discuss free will (Because there are choices), but if A can only lead to B then we cannot (Because there aren't). Free will in undertaking any course of action hinges upon alternatives being present.
Now, what's all this determinism nonsense about? Determinism is the philosophical stance that posits that given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. Great. What does that mean? First, let's talk about the physically possible and the hypothetically possible. The physically possible is something that can actually occur in reality... a pretty simple concept. It was physically possible for me to start a blog and we know this because it already happened. The hypothetically possible is something that we can conceive of occurring, whether or not it actually does (Or can). It is hypothetically possible that I could start a second blog for the hell of it. It is also hypothetically possible that ostriches are all highly intelligent terrorists from mars that are waiting for the perfect time to eradicate the human race by panicking us with loud noises and flashing lights. The probability of these two hypothetical worlds becoming physical isn't important, nor is the level of absurdity involved, they're both equally hypothetical.
With me so far? Good.
Alright, do you know what the past is? That's what has already happened chronologically. Yeah, I thought you knew. Really, I did. What about the laws of nature, what are those? You probably already know that too, things like gravity, solid objects not being able to occupy the same coordinates in space and clowns existing. The funny thing about the laws of nature is that they are essentially various forms of cause and effect. If I drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity. If I pick the rock up and hit myself in the face with it, they will not occupy the same coordinates upon collision, instead one or the other will be forced out of the way. If a clown exists, then it exists (Yes, tautologies can be conditionals). In fact, it appears as though everything around us is governed by these chains of cause and effect. The universe seems to be a massive conglomeration of mechanical parts in motion.
Now, what does all of that mean? Well, let's revisit the definition of determinism; Given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. From what we just talked about, that means that given some past state (P) and the laws of nature (L) we must arrive at some particular future (F). With the laws of nature being conditional (If, then) statements we cannot possibly get anything other than F if we start by putting P into the equation. It's like adding numbers, no matter how many times you punch 5+7 into a calculator you will always arrive at 12. It cannot possibly be any other way.
Consider something. Human actions are events. More than that, it appears as though your "mind" is a highly complex chemical reaction in your brain... intricate and mysterious enough that we don't fully understand it but still a very physical thing. Chemicals interact in a series of events. Physical events are governed by physical laws and if determinism holds true then given brain state A and the laws of nature we will always arrive at brain state B. The actions your physical body takes are then governed by these changes in the state of your brain, so given brain state B and the laws of nature we will always arrive at course of action C. These are conditionals, equations. It is impossible to input some set of data and arrive at more than one answer, no matter how many times it is tested.
Now, you don't exist in a vacuum. You are, hopefully, influenced by a great many factors, all of those variables feeding into this equation. But, it is still just an equation at the end of the day and all of these conditionals lead to the same physically possible future... of which there can only be one. So it is hypothetically possible that you could go to the store today and it is hypothetically possible that you could not go to the store today but only one of them is physically possible. Whatever happens doesn't just become the course of history, it is the only possible course history could have taken (Are we seeing the pattern here?).
If there is only one outcome, then there aren't any alternatives by definition. If there aren't any alternatives then free will cannot possibly enter the equation. And that, in a nutshell, is my argument for why free will does not exist (And by "my argument," I mean the argument that I've come across and adopted).
Any questions? Rebuttals? I'll probably be doing a "part two" anyways just because it's such a juicy topic and I ended up cutting a lot of stuff I'd like to talk about (Yes, as wordy as this post is, it's abbreviated), so I might as well answer any direct responses in the process should they arise before then.
First, what is free will? Literally, it is having a will that is a free. In this case the "will" is volition, the conscious desire, a mental state capable of striving towards some action. "Free" means unconstrained. So, slamming it together, we get an unconstrained volition. Great. Essentially what that means is that the volition has some form of unconstrained freedom to decide upon a particular course of action. This is all probably something that you're very familiar and seems pointless, but the technical terminology is important because...
For the volition to choose between various courses of action there have to actually be various courses of action in the first place. Again, this seems obvious, but it's very important. If there is only one course of action with no other alternatives, then it cannot be said that free will enters into the equation because there aren't any choices to be made. To put it another way, if A can lead to B, C or D, then we could discuss free will (Because there are choices), but if A can only lead to B then we cannot (Because there aren't). Free will in undertaking any course of action hinges upon alternatives being present.
Now, what's all this determinism nonsense about? Determinism is the philosophical stance that posits that given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. Great. What does that mean? First, let's talk about the physically possible and the hypothetically possible. The physically possible is something that can actually occur in reality... a pretty simple concept. It was physically possible for me to start a blog and we know this because it already happened. The hypothetically possible is something that we can conceive of occurring, whether or not it actually does (Or can). It is hypothetically possible that I could start a second blog for the hell of it. It is also hypothetically possible that ostriches are all highly intelligent terrorists from mars that are waiting for the perfect time to eradicate the human race by panicking us with loud noises and flashing lights. The probability of these two hypothetical worlds becoming physical isn't important, nor is the level of absurdity involved, they're both equally hypothetical.
With me so far? Good.
Alright, do you know what the past is? That's what has already happened chronologically. Yeah, I thought you knew. Really, I did. What about the laws of nature, what are those? You probably already know that too, things like gravity, solid objects not being able to occupy the same coordinates in space and clowns existing. The funny thing about the laws of nature is that they are essentially various forms of cause and effect. If I drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity. If I pick the rock up and hit myself in the face with it, they will not occupy the same coordinates upon collision, instead one or the other will be forced out of the way. If a clown exists, then it exists (Yes, tautologies can be conditionals). In fact, it appears as though everything around us is governed by these chains of cause and effect. The universe seems to be a massive conglomeration of mechanical parts in motion.
Now, what does all of that mean? Well, let's revisit the definition of determinism; Given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. From what we just talked about, that means that given some past state (P) and the laws of nature (L) we must arrive at some particular future (F). With the laws of nature being conditional (If, then) statements we cannot possibly get anything other than F if we start by putting P into the equation. It's like adding numbers, no matter how many times you punch 5+7 into a calculator you will always arrive at 12. It cannot possibly be any other way.
Consider something. Human actions are events. More than that, it appears as though your "mind" is a highly complex chemical reaction in your brain... intricate and mysterious enough that we don't fully understand it but still a very physical thing. Chemicals interact in a series of events. Physical events are governed by physical laws and if determinism holds true then given brain state A and the laws of nature we will always arrive at brain state B. The actions your physical body takes are then governed by these changes in the state of your brain, so given brain state B and the laws of nature we will always arrive at course of action C. These are conditionals, equations. It is impossible to input some set of data and arrive at more than one answer, no matter how many times it is tested.
Now, you don't exist in a vacuum. You are, hopefully, influenced by a great many factors, all of those variables feeding into this equation. But, it is still just an equation at the end of the day and all of these conditionals lead to the same physically possible future... of which there can only be one. So it is hypothetically possible that you could go to the store today and it is hypothetically possible that you could not go to the store today but only one of them is physically possible. Whatever happens doesn't just become the course of history, it is the only possible course history could have taken (Are we seeing the pattern here?).
If there is only one outcome, then there aren't any alternatives by definition. If there aren't any alternatives then free will cannot possibly enter the equation. And that, in a nutshell, is my argument for why free will does not exist (And by "my argument," I mean the argument that I've come across and adopted).
Any questions? Rebuttals? I'll probably be doing a "part two" anyways just because it's such a juicy topic and I ended up cutting a lot of stuff I'd like to talk about (Yes, as wordy as this post is, it's abbreviated), so I might as well answer any direct responses in the process should they arise before then.
So, what is this and why should I care?
A blog, and I guess you shouldn't... unless you happen to like boardgames, music or philosophy (And preferably all three). Since those three things take up 99% of my time these days, I thought I might as well go for broke and tack on another 0.5%. 1/200th of my life is enough time to spend on eating and sleeping, right? Anyways... well, that's the gist of it. At the moment I'm going to play things by ear and just post irregular updates about whatever strikes my fancy, but I'll try to keep the balance more or less equal and might consider implementing some sort of rough schedule later down the line. Also, feel free to try to prod me in the direction you'd prefer this to go, I might actually listen.
And that's that. Let's get the show on the road... or whatever.
And that's that. Let's get the show on the road... or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)